maplesyrup
New member
Not sure but I doubt he takes any CFL offer. Rumor has it he has offers from 2 NFL teams to come in and see what he can do as (if you guessed RB you're wrong) - a TE.
2012 NFL Thread
- Thread starter Kin
- Start date
seahawk
New member
The Jets wanted Tebow to switch to either running back or tight end after they traded for him but he wasn't interested. As for the CFL route, its not a slam dunk by any means. The only thing working to his advantage with that is that he would not be rushed into playing right away. He would be able to learn the nuances of the CFL game from one of the best QBs in the league.
seahawk
New member
The 49ers have announced naming rights for their new stadium in Santa Clara. Local clothing company Levi Strauss has signed a 20 year deal.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/football/49ers-announce-220-million-naming-rights-deal-for-new-santa-clara-stadium/article11789738/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/football/49ers-announce-220-million-naming-rights-deal-for-new-santa-clara-stadium/article11789738/
L K
Well-known member
I'm certainly not a fan of guys who beat up their partners, but a certain judge probably needs to have a stick removed from a certain back ended orifice.
http://www.tsn.ca/nfl/story/?id=425108
http://www.tsn.ca/nfl/story/?id=425108
hockeyfan1
New member
L K said:
To some women, when they receive a pat or light 'slap' on their behinds, can be seen as offensive. If Johnson had wanted to emit a knowledge of respect, he should have shaken his lawyer's hand, the common thing to do.
Guess some 'macho' male cultural things never die down towards females.
KoHo
New member
Tim Tebow will sign with the New England Patriots and report to mini-camp tomorrow. Bill Belichick is known to be an admirer of Tebow and offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels was Denver's head coach when they traded up to select Tebow in the 2010 draft. No word yet on what role Tebow will play with the Patriots.
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/9362801/tim-tebow-sign-new-england-patriots-sources-say
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/9362801/tim-tebow-sign-new-england-patriots-sources-say
hockeyfan1
New member
L K said:
Johnson, er, Ochocinco, should just have shaken his attorney's hand. It's called r-e-s-p-e-c-t. Regardless of gender.
Kin
Active member
The Washington team's name controversy has been getting heated lately, with 10 congressmen signing a letter urging Dan Snyder to change the team's name, Snyder hiring noted GOP(and NHL) spinmeister Frank Luntz to try and quell the rising bad sentiment and more than a few newspapers refusing to use the team's name in print.
Goodell defends Washington's Name
Goodell defends Washington's Name
KoHo
New member
Not exactly politically correct but my message to people offended by the name:
Get over it.
The "Redskins" name just like the "Indians" and "Blackhawks" is meant with 0 malice or prejudice. None whatsoever. This isn't even a campaign launched by Native Americans, it's an initiative led by white Senators who want to PC society to death. These silly politicians have more important things to be working on than pretending be outraged about a football team because of "white guilt."
Get over it.
The "Redskins" name just like the "Indians" and "Blackhawks" is meant with 0 malice or prejudice. None whatsoever. This isn't even a campaign launched by Native Americans, it's an initiative led by white Senators who want to PC society to death. These silly politicians have more important things to be working on than pretending be outraged about a football team because of "white guilt."
Kin
Active member
Couple things just in the interest of background information:
George Marshall, the man who named the team, was one of the most virulently racist people to ever own a professional sports franchise, a man that most people think was behind the decision to ban black players from the NFL and refused to put one on his team even after the league integrated for 17 years and only relented when the federal government basically mandated that the team do the same. What the intent behind the name is, I suppose, unknowable but given those origins I don't know if I'd be that quick to ascribe a benevolent or prejudice-free intent, keeping in mind that if we agree that the name is a racial slur that the intent behind it is largely irrelevant.
Well, A) it's not Senators, it's Congresspeople and B) describing the 10 who signed the letter as "white" is terrifically inaccurate. For starters, the chief architect of the letter was Tom Cole, a republican from Oklahoma, who is one of only two Native Americans in Congress, being a member of the Chickasaw nation. After Cole, though, only two of the signees are white. The signers include African-American, Hispanic, Japanese-American and Samoan members of Congress. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, one of the very few Native Americans to serve in the Senate, has also been outspokenly vocal about wanting the team to change their name.
Well, A) as I've pointed out very few of the people involved congressionally are white so it's not born out of white guilt and B) really, all they did was sign a letter. It's not like that takes up too much of their time.
Anyways, the issue here really seems to be boiling down to a case that's more about whether or not the Football team should be allowed to hold a copyright on the name. On that question I'm fairly inclined to side against the team. Even if you want to argue that a privately owned football team should be allowed to be named whatever the owner wants, it's a much harder case to make that anyone should have a copyright on a racial slur.
KoHo said:
George Marshall, the man who named the team, was one of the most virulently racist people to ever own a professional sports franchise, a man that most people think was behind the decision to ban black players from the NFL and refused to put one on his team even after the league integrated for 17 years and only relented when the federal government basically mandated that the team do the same. What the intent behind the name is, I suppose, unknowable but given those origins I don't know if I'd be that quick to ascribe a benevolent or prejudice-free intent, keeping in mind that if we agree that the name is a racial slur that the intent behind it is largely irrelevant.
KoHo said:
Well, A) it's not Senators, it's Congresspeople and B) describing the 10 who signed the letter as "white" is terrifically inaccurate. For starters, the chief architect of the letter was Tom Cole, a republican from Oklahoma, who is one of only two Native Americans in Congress, being a member of the Chickasaw nation. After Cole, though, only two of the signees are white. The signers include African-American, Hispanic, Japanese-American and Samoan members of Congress. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, one of the very few Native Americans to serve in the Senate, has also been outspokenly vocal about wanting the team to change their name.
KoHo said:
Well, A) as I've pointed out very few of the people involved congressionally are white so it's not born out of white guilt and B) really, all they did was sign a letter. It's not like that takes up too much of their time.
Anyways, the issue here really seems to be boiling down to a case that's more about whether or not the Football team should be allowed to hold a copyright on the name. On that question I'm fairly inclined to side against the team. Even if you want to argue that a privately owned football team should be allowed to be named whatever the owner wants, it's a much harder case to make that anyone should have a copyright on a racial slur.
KoHo
New member
Wow, that's some good fact-checking. I have a much more clear understand of this now but my position hasn't changed. No matter how racist the old owner may have been the name isn't interpreted in a negative light. The group of people who find it offensive is very small...according to a University of Pennsylvania poll of 768 Native Americans only 9% found the name offensive. I think our society has to tone down the overzealous political correctness a little. It's getting a bit much. The Redskins are a historic franchise and should be left be.
People of Norwegian descent don't object to the name "Vikings" and people of Irish/Gaelic descent have no problem with "Celtics." I've also never heard of anyone taking offense to the "Edmonton Eskimos" name...
People of Norwegian descent don't object to the name "Vikings" and people of Irish/Gaelic descent have no problem with "Celtics." I've also never heard of anyone taking offense to the "Edmonton Eskimos" name...
Kin
Active member
KoHo said:
Well, clearly how the name is interpreted is a matter of some dispute. Regardless, as I said, I don't know if how a name is "interpreted" is really the key issue when it comes to a word that is listed in most dictionaries as an offensive slur.
KoHo said:
One, that's a nearly 10 year old poll at this point and two, it's a problematic poll for any number of reasons. Those 768 people were only self-identified as Native Americans as opposed to, say, being taken from official legal members of a tribe or nation. Likewise, there's a pretty significant wealth of academic literature that says that using Native American mascots/nicknames are legitimately harmful, to the point where the American Psychological Association has passed a resolution calling for them not to be used.
KoHo said:
As I mentioned, I think the issue right now is the issue of the copyright. US law actually says that you can't copyright a disparaging term to others. Again, being as it's a pretty common consensus that it's an offensive term, it seems like it's a pretty open and shut case here. In fact, the people who have sued to overturn the trademark actually won in court and only lost on appeal on the grounds that they should have brought their case earlier. The current case, brought by people of an appropriate age, looks like it should probably win as well.
KoHo said:
Those strike me as pretty patently false equivalencies because neither Vikings or Celtics are or have ever been used as derogatory slurs against the people you're referring to. Likewise, it's notable that it's not the Atlanta Braves or Kansas City Chiefs that are the target of these lawsuits but the one specific team that uses what is again, a term that is almost beyond dispute a racial slur.
KoHo
New member
Ok. But I still think the people up in arms about this need to get a grip. It's not that big of a deal. I understand you wouldn't go up to a Native American and call them a "Redskin" but the football team's name has been there for so long that it's been accepted by society as non-offensive in that context. There's a movement within the Native community to change the name, but there's also a movement to keep the name because they take pride in it. Since the football team's been around for so long and his major historical semblance they should just keep it. No one is starting an expansion team in 2013 with a name like the "Redskins."
Kin
Active member
KoHo said:
Well, clearly that's a matter of some dispute. Like I said, there's quite a bit of academic literature on the harmful effects that using Native American symbols/terms as mascots/nicknames can have on what I think we'd agree is an already marginalized community.
KoHo said:
Again, I don't think that it has been universally accepted by society. Regardless, that something like this has existed for a long time to the extent that it's been normalized would be part of the problem. There is no grandfather clause for outdated behaviour/offensive terminology in our society.
KoHo said:
Where is that particular movement? Who is leading it? I only ask because in the reading I've done on the subject I've never heard of a Native group vociferously defending the name or even taking pride in it.
KoHo said:
Well, yet again, the issue isn't really keep it or change it at this point. Right now it's more about the copyright and should they be allowed to "own" such a term.
Anyways, coincidentally enough, a story about the team in question and the controversy over their name was one of the headlines on Grantland today. I think it's worth a read: An Open Letter to Dan Snyder.
KoHo
New member
Aaron Hernandez was released by the Patriots today after being arrested in connection with the murder of Odin Lloyd. Meanwhile, Browns rookie Ausar Walcott was also released today after being charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and endangering an injured victim.
Not the NFL's finest hour.
Not the NFL's finest hour.
maplesyrup
New member
Anyone care to enter a friendly (private) 12 team http://cbssports.com fantasy football league this year? Please PM me. - Draft Sep 3 1430... Just 3 of 12 spots remaining.